Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
Obama and the Regulators
They are imposing huge burdens on business.

By Andrew Stiles


Archive Latest E-Mail RSS Send Follow•   followers
Text  

On Tuesday, the Obama administration announced the results of an eight-month government-wide review designed to reduce the regulatory impact on businesses. Every federal department was ordered to put forward a plan to do away with red tape. Now that those plans have been unveiled, the administration has promised an additional round of reviews, a process that White House officials claim is “likely” to save at least $10 billion over five years and create an unspecified number of jobs.

Members of the business community met this effort with the equivalent of an obligatory golf clap, as one applauds a beleaguered player who finally taps in for triple-bogey. “The administration’s findings and determinations, on their own, are a worthy effort at making technical changes to the regulatory process,” Bill Kovacs, a senior vice president at the Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement. “But the results of this lookback will not have a material impact on the real regulatory burden facing businesses today.”

Advertisement

Indeed, even if that $10 billion estimate holds true, it would cover just a fraction of the $65 billion in total costs imposed by the nearly 350 new federal regulations introduced since beginning of this year alone, according to an analysis by Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.). And those are only the rules for which the administration deigned to analyze the economic consequences before implementing them. Hundreds more have been put in place without regard to cost or the impact on jobs.

That is why Republicans are gearing up to challenge President Obama, who will supposedly unveil — in speech format, no less — a “very specific” jobs plan when Congress returns in September, on the issue of government overregulation and its damaging impact on jobs. “Speeches and editorials are not enough to help real job creators in America — small business owners — create middle-class jobs,” Cantor said in a statement following the release of the regulatory review. “Action is needed — which is why we must remove onerous federal regulations that are redundant, harmful to small businesses, and impede private sector investment and job creation.”

GOP lawmakers already have a number of bills in the pipeline that would address the issue. Senator Barrasso, for example, has introduced legislation that would simply force federal agencies to consider the impact that new regulations would have on jobs. Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) has proposed a moratorium on major new regulation until the unemployment rate returns to 7.7 percent — the rate when Obama took office.

In the House, where the GOP can actually set the legislative agenda, Republicans are poised to roll out measures that would eliminate some of the more onerous regulations imposed by the administration. “Next month, the House will continue our jobs focus and pursue a legislative agenda that boosts economic growth through reducing the regulatory and tax burden,” Cantor said. “We will make sure that Washington policies are less restrictive to businesses small and large by requiring a congressional review and approval of any proposed federal government regulation that will have a significant impact on the economy.”

Here’s at look at some of the various federal agencies that are ripe for a regulatory overhaul:

 

Environmental Protection Agency. Ever since Congress rejected his business-crippling “cap and trade” venture, President Obama has simply sought to impose his agenda anyway through the EPA, most blatantly through the creation of new ozone-pollution standards, at an estimated cost of nearly $1 trillion. The administration has wisely decided to delay the imposition of these new standards, but opponents argue that they ought to be scrapped altogether to ease the collective anxiety of the business community.

Furthermore, the EPA and the Department of Transportation have jointly conceived new regulations that would — for the first time ever — require stricter emissions and mileage standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks. These new standards would affect everything from delivery vans to full-size pickups and buses. Barrasso estimated that the new rules would cost consumers an additional $1,000 per vehicle, at a total cost of more than $8 billion. Tighter controls on pollution caused by cement and “coarse particulate material” (i.e., dust) are also in the works, promising to drive up costs and further impede employers’ ability to create jobs.

1   2   Next >
Text  

You Might Also Like...

Trinko: Will Fear Decide Texas Senate Race?

Symposium: Polling Life

Malkin: Obama’s Land of the LOST



COMMENTS   26

EXPAND  

   08/25/11 06:39

I am cheered by the fact that one majority in one third of Congress has seized the initiative by countering brick by brick the dismantling of the edifice of fiscal and regulatory legerdemain of the Obama bureaucrats. I believe there is scant appreciation of these efforts by those who expect that nothing can be done to rectify this perverse assault on the governance of the republic until the next election.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/25/11 09:24

I appreciate the efforts of the majority in the House on these regulatory issues, but they, IMO, blew their opportunity to deserve more praise when they caved on the debt limit. They failed to lead at a most critical juncture. Again. They are dismantling bricks while cinder blocks are being heaved upon them.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/25/11 10:48

So: for the vast majority of businesses in this country -- small businesses -- tell me, which regulations are the unreasonable ones?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/25/11 12:54

ObamaCare ...

your turn ...

how about you point at a reasonable one ?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
SheepGirl
   08/25/11 13:59

This year they introduced new record keeping and certification requirements for auto painting, supposedly to reduce the use of lead paints (that were mostly regulated out of existence 20 years ago). This was accompanied by new fees ranging from 3-10K depending on business size. Took me a week to read, research and understand the paperwork and decide to request exempt status by declaring our paint booth would henceforth paint 10 cars or less per year. By limiting our side business we avoided the fees. Oh and the new record keeping rules amount to keeping the paint invoices and specs in their own file cabinet in or near the paint booth instead of the office and hanging their certificate of compliance in a prominent space with all the other darn certificates.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/25/11 14:21

Thank you, SheepGirl. I really appreciate it.

Here are some "good" federal regulations: You can't smoke in the lavatory of a passenger plane. Cars have to have safety glass. If you have an old mimeograph machine, you can't use mimeograph fluid (it's a carcinogen). No matter how old you are (or young at heart), you can't buy M-80's anymore (darn!).

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/25/11 15:15

Sheepgirl, I just googled those regulations. I have to admit, growing up in a world full of spray paint, that I don't think about spray painting or paint stripping as particularly dangerous stuff. But apparently it's unhealthy to do a lot of it. What do you think would be appropriate in your business? What would work, what would be reasonable? How far "off" is the EPA here?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
hmastercylinder
   08/26/11 15:57

The problem is simple. Mind your own business. You see something you think is dangerous. You demand it cease. If it does not cease, the Feds will attack, and the process is the penalty. You are not only guilty, but punished before anyone ever proves you are really at fault.
Asbestos and paint fumes are a great example. They both cause problems when you expose rats to massive doses for a long time. Therefore, both substances must be regulated unto death. I have worked many years in both those fields. Men who worked with me and got sick all had one thing in common: cigarette smoke. They all smoked like fiends all day long. Meanwhile, some of us who were exposed for years and years, in even worse situations, are fine. Indeed, I use a CPAP. The pulmonary doctor tests me every 6 months. When I tell him what I did, he asks me one question: did you ever smoke? The answer being "no", he says don't worry. For all the things he treats, besides heredity or simple physical damage, the one common thread is smoking.
But governments now rely on their cut from the tobacco crooks, so it must be something else. You can't sue the government.
I could go on and on, but regulations have killed this country. Canada, although regulated even worse, has a government which actively helps companies to grow and market their stuff. They also try to find doable solutions for serious issues. In America, the government says: not my problem. The fine will be you go out of business.
Gee. I wonder why unemployment is so high?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
muchamused
   08/25/11 17:07

And without this regulation of smoking in a lavatory the airlines would allow it? Auto makers would'nt use safety glass? And who even has a mimeogragh machine (sand is also a carcinogen, at least in Calif.)? Get out of my life! I don't need a nanny.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/25/11 14:51

We are in the process of obtaining a loan to purchase the building we had built in a build-to-suit lease 2 years ago. As part of the process, the EPA is requiring an environmental report to determine things like chemicals used on premises and discarded, waste water management, have we compounded chemicals on the premesis, wildlife habitat, etc. This was a development lot of 3/4 acre with weeds 2 feet tall when be purchased it for a veterinary hospital. All we have done is mow and water the grass. Cost to us for the report - $2200.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/25/11 15:11

Merits, is that an EPA requirement or a lender requirement?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/25/11 16:26

I believe it's an EPA requirement anytime the land changes hands. A report was done a few years ago for the current owner, which is one reason it's silly, since we haven't changed anything. The lender is US Bank and they said they are just complying with requirements.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
old white guy
   08/26/11 09:36
Eric Dalton
   08/25/11 11:06

“In periods of high unemployment, an increase in labor demand due to regulation may have a stimulative effect that results in a net increase in overall employment,” the agency wrote in February."

Broken Window theory anyone? Seriously, are these people really this ignorant?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/25/11 12:17

I once debated a young communist who sounded a lot like the beaurocrat that you quote.

He declared that high taxes on the wealthy were good for the economy.
His logic went like this.
The wealthy are used to a certain lifestyle. So if govt takes away half of their income, they will work twice as hard in order to double their income so they can keep the same lifestyle.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
gaslolit
   08/25/11 17:29

Pah-leeze! Who really believes a Republican Party that couldn't cut something as trivial as PBS/NPR from the budget will take on the EPA. LOL!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
old white guy
   08/26/11 09:36

jd is right the senate nor the pres would pass it. unfortunately everything obama says at any given moment will be reversed the next time he opens his mouth. everything the man says is a "big lie".

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/25/11 18:45

LOL back at'cha Gaslolit - it was defeated in the Senate - the Dem controlled Senate.

If it had passed the Senate, the Prez would not have signed it.

Next.........

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
jasayin
   08/25/11 18:57

2200 dollars to file a declaration all you have done was cut & mow the grass.
I am guessing that the set paperwork killed a small forest being in triplicate in all.
Heh heh

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Reggie
   08/25/11 20:00

Clearly, the answer is a commission on regulating regulations and the regulators to get our system more regular.

If voters and Congress just had more moral fiber and gave a fig...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact